Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[clydeaker]

Check out this reddit thread: A Fair Solution To Smash 4 Ruleset Issues.

"There may be a few things we CANT poll on (ex. 2 stock vs 3 stock: if a TO has time constraints/not enough setups) but for a large majority of things we all can't agree on consistently this could be the way to solve the argument. A simple majority rule." - SmashCapps

I completely agree that some large tournaments with time constraints should use 2 stock instead of 3, but if time isn't such a huge issue we still can't agree on consistently 2 or 3 stock, we can solve this argument by a simple majority rule.

 

[wizrad]

So why is 3 stock doubles standard, but 3 stock singles is not?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Have you ever played Teams 2 stocks? It's ridiculous, Share Stock is virtually non-existent, and the first one to die is in a huge disadvantage, like 10 times worse than 1v1.


I know I am in a minority who likes 2 stocks instead of 3, but I really appreciate how viable the mixup game becomes.
3 stocks is completely different and the mental state is drastically changed.
I do not thing 3 stocks is bad at all, I simply like 2 better.

 

[Xeze]

So shield stun is increased now. Which means it will make the game more aggressive. Do you think this will favor a shift towards a 3 stock format? I would believe so.

 

[Shouxiao]

So why is 3 stock doubles standard, but 3 stock singles is not?

Share stock rarely exist if 2stock doubles were the rules. The problems that 2stock have in 1v1 would be much worse in 2v2. The right setup in doubles with just 2stock would end a game so fast.

So shield stun is increased now. Which means it will make the game more aggressive. Do you think this will favor a shift towards a 3 stock format? I would believe so.

I think so. The meta has only gotten fast with each patch.

 

[DblCrest]

So shield stun is increased now. Which means it will make the game more aggressive. Do you think this will favor a shift towards a 3 stock format? I would believe so.

It's apparently easier to camp now with shield stun as well.

 

[Shouxiao]

It's apparently easier to camp now with shield stun as well.

I doubt it considering what people have been discovering with characters with this patch. There are actually a good amount of shield breaking shenanigans now. Characters have the potential to break shields SSB64 style this patch. The game favors offensive play a lot more now.

 

[Powerman293]

We have to go 3 stock now with the Shield stun patch. Games are go to get much more agressive and quicker, meaning stuff from rage stacking up would build faster and faster.

 

[ぱみゅ]

IF it develops that way.
People might also just try to camp harder.
Who knows.
We need to make all kind of tests.

 

[warpanda54]

Personally I belive that 2 stock is better because it leaves less room for mistakes and the less time the quicker you have to move it sends a sense of exitement to me personally

 

[Probalo]

3 stock 8 minutes seems most ideal. 2 stock 6 mins is better for tournaments with small time frames. 3 stock matches last longer, but provide more room for mistakes. 2 stock is best if you want short matches, in quick succession.

 

[Shouxiao]

The game is definitely more aggressive. The way people use shields is going to change a lot. Moves that already did a lot of damage to shields are more effective. Many multi hit moves are very devastating to shields. Electric base moves are really good. Shield grabbing a lot of moves shall not work any more. Many characters can be far more aggressive now.

Smash 4 has more shield stun than Melee now. I would say the game is more aggressive and that spacing is now even more important. Defensive play is still here of course but the game favors offensive play a lot more now. The rewards of offensive play are a lot more now.

 

[clydeaker]

2 or 3 stock is too short. Let's use 5 stock matches.

 

[Reila]

2 or 3 stock is too short. Let's use 5 stock matches.

I came here to suggest 7 stocks, but I could live with 5 stock matches. I kinda feel it's not enough, though?

 

[ぱみゅ]

With 7 stocks we barely have time to truly read our opponents, 5 stock is too short of a match.

 

[FallenHero]

The only way to truly determine who is the most skilled player is to play with 99 stocks and no time limit.

 

[TheJolteon]

If you SD at 1 stock then you already fell heartbroken. But if it was 3 stock then we wouldn't feel as discouraged and would want to make a comeback. I think it would only work in tournament but either way im fine

 

[clydeaker]

The only way to truly determine who is the most skilled player is to play with 99 stocks and no time limit.

And it should be best of 99 matches because best of 3 is way too short.

 

[maxics]

I enjoy 3 stocks for doubles and crew battles, 2 stocks for 1v1

 

[Pazx]

I don't really understand why doubles should be 3 stock but not singles. I'd much rather have the main event using the more optimal ruleset even if it means sacrificing a stock from doubles.

 

[Shouxiao]

I don't really understand why doubles should be 3 stock but not singles. I'd much rather have the main event using the more optimal ruleset even if it means sacrificing a stock from doubles.

Both are better with 3stock. Having 2stock in doubles is bad with the team killset ups that can easily happen. Plus there basically is not any share stock. The problems of 2stock in 1v1 are more prevalence if 2stock were to be used in doubles.

Considering how things are with shield stun I think its even more of a reason for 3stock. Aggressiveness is much more rewarding. Defense is still there of course but the way defense is right now is different. It is a lot easier for characters to put pressure on a defending player this patch. If the attacking player is spacing right the defending player can not punish them easy or at all like they could with previous patches. If a defending player is not careful with their shields there is a good chance that it shall break.

 

[DarkStar64]

Considering how things are with shield stun I think its even more of a reason for 3stock. Aggressiveness is much more rewarding. Defense is still there of course but the way defense is right now is different. It is a lot easier for characters to put pressure on a defending player this patch. If the attacking player is spacing right the defending player can not punish them easy or at all like they could with previous patches. If a defending player is not careful with their shields there is a good chance that it shall break.

I completely agree, I think Smash 4 singles are definitely worthy of a 3-stock 8 minute rule-set especially after the shield stun changes. The game is almost unarguably faster than Brawl at this point and Brawl had 3-stock 8 minutes so there's absolutely no reason Smash 4 should be limited to 2-stock.

 

[Mazdamaxsti]

"SDing doesn't put you at as much of a disadvantage"

you literally SD'd. You threw yourself offstage and killed yourself. That is your fault. Is that literally what people are arguing about 2 stocks? Here's a tip, don't kill yourself.

"Makes more time for comebacks"
I see people say "ur 2 stock argument is the same for a 1 stock argument!" but this is the same as a 4 or 5 stock argument. The more stocks the more room for comebacks, so let's play a 47 stock game. That isn't how it works. Heck, 2 stocks is EASIER to make a comeback, if I have 1 stock and they have 2, just kill their 1st stock and now you're both at the same stocks. If I'm at 1 stock and my opponent is at 3 stocks, yeah it makes a comeback more POSSIBLE, but it makes it even less PROBABLE.

"Who cares about time, we want what we want!"
Seriously doubting you've ever been a TO. TOs don't want tournaments running for too long. They want a smooth transition from pools to pools to bracket, in 1 or 2 days depending the tournament. Heck, most nationals get all pools done in 1 day. If a format already is hard to keep within the time frame, and people are asking for LONGER matches, it simply won't happen.

"3 stock is more fun"
friendlies are a thing, play them in friendlies.

"3 stock makes people less campy"
So what? The two big things about camping is 1. Makes the match go too long and 2. Boring to watch. #1 is defeated by the fact that 3 stock is still longer than 2 stock, and #2 is defeated by the fact that Smash 4 still gets a ton of viewers, it doesn't matter if it's a little more campy.

Most of you are looking at a "3 stock is more enjoyable" stance. I can't really disagree to be honest. For a competitive stance, "enjoyability" doesn't matter. 3 stock isn't colossaly better than 2 stock. The Pros of 3 stock don't matter in a tournament setting, while 2 stock works fine and still garners a lot of attention. 3 stock will literally do nothing except make tournaments go longer.

 

[Yogurt]

I like 3 stock, there's definitely an element of endurance there and comebacks can be exciting

 

[DarkStar64]

"SDing doesn't put you at as much of a disadvantage"

you literally SD'd. You threw yourself offstage and killed yourself. That is your fault. Is that literally what people are arguing about 2 stocks? Here's a tip, don't kill yourself.

"Makes more time for comebacks"
I see people say "ur 2 stock argument is the same for a 1 stock argument!" but this is the same as a 4 or 5 stock argument. The more stocks the more room for comebacks, so let's play a 47 stock game. That isn't how it works. Heck, 2 stocks is EASIER to make a comeback, if I have 1 stock and they have 2, just kill their 1st stock and now you're both at the same stocks. If I'm at 1 stock and my opponent is at 3 stocks, yeah it makes a comeback more POSSIBLE, but it makes it even less PROBABLE.

"Who cares about time, we want what we want!"
Seriously doubting you've ever been a TO. TOs don't want tournaments running for too long. They want a smooth transition from pools to pools to bracket, in 1 or 2 days depending the tournament. Heck, most nationals get all pools done in 1 day. If a format already is hard to keep within the time frame, and people are asking for LONGER matches, it simply won't happen.

"3 stock is more fun"
friendlies are a thing, play them in friendlies.

"3 stock makes people less campy"
So what? The two big things about camping is 1. Makes the match go too long and 2. Boring to watch. #1 is defeated by the fact that 3 stock is still longer than 2 stock, and #2 is defeated by the fact that Smash 4 still gets a ton of viewers, it doesn't matter if it's a little more campy.

Most of you are looking at a "3 stock is more enjoyable" stance. I can't really disagree to be honest. For a competitive stance, "enjoyability" doesn't matter. 3 stock isn't colossaly better than 2 stock. The Pros of 3 stock don't matter in a tournament setting, while 2 stock works fine and still garners a lot of attention. 3 stock will literally do nothing except make tournaments go longer.

Being able to enjoy matches more IS important from a competitive standpoint, if players are enjoying there matches more then it promotes them to play better and creates a better viewing experience for spectators. 3 stocks don't just make tournaments last longer they make tournaments better to play and to watch, and like I said before Smash 4 is almost unarguably faster than Brawl at this point, so if Brawl can have a 3 stock 8 minute rule-set then there is absolutely no reason that Smash 4 can't have 3 stock 8 minutes. Overall 3 stocks just make Smash 4 a better game IMO.

 

[Mazdamaxsti]

Being able to enjoy matches more IS important from a competitive standpoint, if players are enjoying there matches more then it promotes them to play better and creates a better viewing experience for spectators. 3 stocks don't just make tournaments last longer they make tournaments better to play and to watch, and like I said before Smash 4 is almost unarguably faster than Brawl at this point, so if Brawl can have a 3 stock 8 minute rule-set then there is absolutely no reason that Smash 4 can't have 3 stock 8 minutes. Overall 3 stocks just make Smash 4 a better game IMO.

Thing is, a 3 stock game is not that much more enjoyable to play or to watch. Nobody is going to quit smash because it's no longer fun to play/watch due to stock count. Smash is still very enjoyable with 2 stock. Brawl could be 3 stock because matches had the ability to end faster since edge-hogging was a thing for example. Ending a stock was easier in Brawl, so a 3 stock game would take less time.

Also, when Brawl became popular, the only two smash games in tournament were Melee and Brawl. Having brawl being 3 stock can be fit in the time frame for 2 events. Now we have 64, Melee, (sometimes) PM/Brawl, and Smash 4. That's 3-5 games instead of 2. To add to this, a lot of broad fighting game events are picking up melee and 4, which adds even more to this number. We want matches to be SHORT and REASONABLE. This is what 2 stocks is. It works in time and reasonability.

 

[DarkStar64]

Thing is, a 3 stock game is not that much more enjoyable to play or to watch. Nobody is going to quit smash because it's no longer fun to play/watch due to stock count. Smash is still very enjoyable with 2 stock. Brawl could be 3 stock because matches had the ability to end faster since edge-hogging was a thing for example. Ending a stock was easier in Brawl, so a 3 stock game would take less time.

Also, when Brawl became popular, the only two smash games in tournament were Melee and Brawl. Having brawl being 3 stock can be fit in the time frame for 2 events. Now we have 64, Melee, (sometimes) PM/Brawl, and Smash 4. That's 3-5 games instead of 2. To add to this, a lot of broad fighting game events are picking up melee and 4, which adds even more to this number. We want matches to be SHORT and REASONABLE. This is what 2 stocks is. It works in time and reasonability.

I think 3 stock matches are a lot more enjoyable than 2 stock and FAR from unreasonably long. I feel more accomplished when I win a three stock game as where there are a lot of cheap strategies that can be used with 2 stock matches (ie. Bowser up 1 stock, Bowsercide, and Ganondorf Ganoncide) 3 stock matches are not going to take that much longer to play. Also, there are rarely events that take all 4 (or 5 if you're counting PM) Smash games at once, most recent big tournaments (aside from Smashcon) have only been Melee and SSB4. If time is such a HUGE issue for a local TO's I don't see any problems in running a 2 stock rule set, but it seems the majority of Smash 4 players want 3 stock and in the end what the players of this game want is ultimately what matters most.

 

[Boomstick720]

3/8 is the way to go.

I had only played 2/6 for a long time in Sm4sh, actually only until about 3 weeks ago, and 3/8 is better in literally every way except if you had very limited time in a tournament. The new shield mechanics especially reinforce that. In addition to this, 2/6 stocks just favor more characters over others. Characters who have more predictable recoveries, or easily edgeguarded recoveries, are intrinsically worse in a 2/6 stock because one gimped recovery is weighted WAY more than doing it a second time. If someone is stage spiked in the first stock in a 2/6 through luck (like battlefields janking get up hitboxes), it is much more frustrating than if the same thing happened in a 3/8. It also almost guaranteed loss if you are playing a character that is heavily dependent on the mental state of the player as well, such as Shulk for example. 3 stocks are just as enjoyable if not more so than 2 for both spectators and players alike, since players tend to play more aggressively since they have less to lose, and being gimp'd or SDing will not be a guarantee that you will lose when playing certain characters.

Why this is even an argument with the recent shield changes is beyond me.

 

[AmericanSaikyo]

Honestly I don't have much preference either way. If there are time constraints I like 2 stock but 3 stock gives me more time to read and adjust my strategy.

 

[Shouxiao]

I think 3 stock matches are a lot more enjoyable than 2 stock and FAR from unreasonably long. I feel more accomplished when I win a three stock game as where there are a lot of cheap strategies that can be used with 2 stock matches (ie. Bowser up 1 stock, Bowsercide, and Ganondorf Ganoncide) 3 stock matches are not going to take that much longer to play. Also, there are rarely events that take all 4 (or 5 if you're counting PM) Smash games at once, most recent big tournaments (aside from Smashcon) have only been Melee and SSB4. If time is such a HUGE issue for a local TO's I don't see any problems in running a 2 stock rule set, but it seems the majority of Smash 4 players want 3 stock and in the end what the players of this game want is ultimately what matters most.

Tournament length with 3stock would not be a problem. Most people do not realize what extend time and stock has on a match. Adding or subtracting one stock and or min greatly effects the pace of a match. 3stock would take about the same time or a little more time. People are acting like 3stock is going to take up so much extra time that they are going to be spending all day and night finishing a tournament. The main thing making tournaments longer is the number of people attending. This is not just for Smash Bros though. Look at big Street Fighter tournaments. Over the years some fighting games have literally doubled their tournament entrances.

Smash 4 has always been faster than Brawl since day 1. It may not have been much faster at first but now we are not limited to just 3DS controllers, fewer stages with larger blast zones, and vectoring/DI was changed compared to how it was at first. All the patches have just made the game much faster. The shield stun really made the game more aggressive. Players can take stocks faster and easier now.

 

[IcantWin]

Thing is, a 3 stock game is not that much more enjoyable to play or to watch. Nobody is going to quit smash because it's no longer fun to play/watch due to stock count. Smash is still very enjoyable with 2 stock. Brawl could be 3 stock because matches had the ability to end faster since edge-hogging was a thing for example. Ending a stock was easier in Brawl, so a 3 stock game would take less time.

Also, when Brawl became popular, the only two smash games in tournament were Melee and Brawl. Having brawl being 3 stock can be fit in the time frame for 2 events. Now we have 64, Melee, (sometimes) PM/Brawl, and Smash 4. That's 3-5 games instead of 2. To add to this, a lot of broad fighting game events are picking up melee and 4, which adds even more to this number. We want matches to be SHORT and REASONABLE. This is what 2 stocks is. It works in time and reasonability.

I would like to bring up a quick comparison and some maths to illustrate the differences between brawl and smash 4, taken directly from the losers finals between Nairo and V115 for brawl and Esam v ZeRo for smash 4 grand finals, both sets taken from Super Smash Con. In a best of 5 for the brawl matches only 4 were played. Each match in order were as follows, g1: 4:07, g2: 2:36, g3: 4:42, g4: 3:35, a total of 15 minutes and 20 seconds over four games. That's an average of 3:44 seconds per match. I even gave it the benefit of the doubt and added a theoretical match 5 at 3 minutes to make the total an average of 4:08 per match. For smash 4 a total of 5 games were played, but why compare a 4 game to a 5 game match? Well smash 4 over 5 games still went faster than brawl's set of 4. For smash 4, g1: 1:56, g2: 2:27, g3: 3:24, g4: 2:04, g5: 2:48, leaving us an average of 2:30 per match at 12 minutes total. Both games took an average stock once per minute. With brawl taking a total of 18 minutes (including the thoretical 5th match, only 15:20 without), and smash 4 taking 12 minutes, we can make an equation assuming smash 4 used 3 stocks. With 5 games and 1 extra stock per match we have theoretically a 17 minute set to brawls 18. This is an isolated experiment and I still don't see why we can't try 3 stock. At the least do some research and find out like I have, there's more to this than a "this is better because" argument.

Edit: videos for reference,
Brawl: http://youtu.be/BEAqK-zsUhw
Smash 4: http://youtu.be/mDU0_UkYqF4

 

[MrMFC]

Why is 2 stocks 6 minutes even a thing? In Germany most tournaments are 3 stocks 8 minutes and it's perfect imo. 2 stocks is just way too short, 4 stocks too much.

 

[IcantWin]

Why is 2 stocks 6 minutes even a thing? In Germany most tournaments are 3 stocks 8 minutes and it's perfect imo. 2 stocks is just way too short, 4 stocks too much.

Because here in America people like to avoid trying things that might work out of fear that it it might bring any complication to something that is already "working". Instead of striving for change we settle for what's working, it's pretty lazy.

 

[FallenHero]

Even if 2 stocks 6 min is more "reasonable", the game is still faster than Brawl. There is absolutely no reason why there should be a lower stock and time limit than Brawl had. If playing with 3 stocks 8 min is such a pain for TOs than I have no idea why TOs bothered with Brawl.

 

[ぱみゅ]

There are several reasons why Brawl was played with 3 stocks, the primordial one is because it started being played like that and players were very stubborn to change it.
That said, more often than not Brawl tournaments ran late (several factors behind that, too, almost none of them were gameplay-related), and TOs rather prevent that from happening ever again.

But seriously, you all should stop dishing Brawl to prove your point.

 

[FallenHero]

because it started being played like that and players were very stubborn to change it.

Isn't that EXACTLY the way things are with this game? You are sounding like you think Smash 4 being faster than Brawl is not a valid point. Even if it is an argument that is used very often, the argument is definitely a legitimate point. If TOs want to save more time so much why don't we just play with 1 stock?

 

[ぱみゅ]

I do not think it is stubbornness this time around because there are more people supporting 3 stock but almost nobody is actually doing something about it.
I do not buy bashing on a game to support another. Smash 4 might be indeed faster, but there is no need to say "you shouldn't even bother with Brawl" to prove your point.
1 stock miiiiight doable if there were at least best of 9 sets. But then again, that's not what we're trying to prove here.
Oh another thing, the reason I support 2 stocks is not because of time, but because mixups become way more powerful and creativeness is actually rewarded instead of just one flashy play.

 

[IcantWin]

1 stock miiiiight doable if there were at least best of 9 sets. But then again, that's not what we're trying to prove here.
Oh another thing, the reason I support 2 stocks is not because of time, but because mixups become way more powerful and creativeness is actually rewarded instead of just one flashy play.

I have to counter that point with the fact that 2 stock limits you to being rewarded for mixing up once in the match. 3 stocks allow for the potential of more mixups in the match, mixups on mixups, which is even better than a binary style of play for one stock, and a huge cool mixup for the second stock and then the game is just over. I'm still going to point to my last post about 3 stock in smash 4 being still faster than 3 stock in brawl. Our locals are adapting this and implementing 3 stock readily, and it's up to the bigger events to start doing the same if we're going to really see if it's probably the best choice for this game. We all need to stop being so scared of change, this game is almost a year old and we're already accepting things as norms (seriously?) Look at melee, look at how long it took to establish a set of stages for example, no one seems to be patient enough to want to try anything.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The main problem I see with your argument (and on most people actually) is that you see it on a single-match basis. What about full sets? Best-of-5s? Changing the ruleset makes the number of stocks you have to play is much bigger than just one.

The point I'm trying to make is not about the number of mixups, but the impact they have. For example, think of characters that don't have as many mixups as others like Samus, Bowser, Ganon. They do have strong mixups but simply not too many. They could get great sets and even make it far in a tournament, but with three stocks these mixups are much less impacting in the long run; they might get a couple stocks, probably games, but they're way more likely to be figured out and prevented. And that's not a player-exclusive thing, is a character thing that is enhanced by the simple fact of having more overall stocks.

 

[DarkStar64]

I do not think it is stubbornness this time around because there are more people supporting 3 stock but almost nobody is actually doing something about it.
I do not buy bashing on a game to support another. Smash 4 might be indeed faster, but there is no need to say "you shouldn't even bother with Brawl" to prove your point.
1 stock miiiiight doable if there were at least best of 9 sets. But then again, that's not what we're trying to prove here.
Oh another thing, the reason I support 2 stocks is not because of time, but because mixups become way more powerful and creativeness is actually rewarded instead of just one flashy play.

I don't see anyone here bashing Brawl, and no one said you shouldn't bother with Brawl, I happen to like Brawl. We're simply stating facts that Smash 4 is faster.